Absence of an eyewitness does not warrant bail where circumstantial evidence prima facie connects accused.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 191/2026 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The deceased, Jagdish Prajapati, had attended a marriage ceremony at village Kharkhod with his wife and minor son. After an altercation while he was allegedly intoxicated, he went near the house of Nandu Kevat. The applicants allegedly went to him at approximately 3:00 a.m. and gave him water. He was subsequently reported missing, and his dead body was recovered on 3 May 2026, several days after the alleged incident.

During investigation, the wife of the deceased and other witnesses allegedly disclosed circumstances implicating the applicants. The applicants’ memorandum statements allegedly referred to an assault on the deceased and the concealment of his body. Pursuant to applicant No. 1’s memorandum, a wooden stick bearing blood stains was seized. The post-mortem examination recorded fractures of the third ribs and injuries to both patellae; the cause of death was opined to be multiple injuries resulting in haemorrhage and shock due to homicidal assault.

The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed. The applicants had remained in custody since 5 May 2026, and the prosecution had cited 20 witnesses.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in view of the material collected during investigation and the gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023?

2. Whether the absence of an eye-witness and the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence justified the grant of bail at the pre-trial stage?

3. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period of custody, and the anticipated length of the trial outweighed the prima facie circumstances connecting them with the offence?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the allegations under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to the alleged homicidal death, concealment or disappearance of evidence, and joint liability/common intention.

The Court relied on the principle that, at the bail stage, it must examine whether the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case, without conducting a detailed appreciation of evidence or determining the credibility of witnesses.

Relying on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan & Ors., 2025 INSC 979, the Court held that the fact that a prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence is not, by itself, a ground for bail where the investigation material prima facie establishes a chain of circumstances; detailed evaluation is reserved for trial.

The Court found prima facie circumstances connecting the applicants with the alleged offence. These included the statement of the deceased’s wife regarding the events preceding and following the incident, the allegation that the applicants were the last persons to take the deceased outside and later went to him at about 3:00 a.m., the unexplained interval between the alleged incident on 29 April 2026 and recovery of the body on 3 May 2026, and the alleged disclosure statements followed by seizure of a blood-stained wooden stick from applicant No. 1.

The serious injuries recorded in the post-mortem report, including bilateral rib fractures and displaced injuries to both patellae, supported the prosecution’s case of homicidal assault and could not be disregarded at the bail stage.

Although there was no eye-witness, the Court held that the circumstantial nature of the evidence did not justify bail because the collected material was not insufficient to establish a prima facie case.

The filing of the charge-sheet and the applicants’ custody were also insufficient to outweigh the gravity of the offence and the fact that examination of the 20 prosecution witnesses had not commenced.

The absence of an eye-witness, filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicants’ period of custody did not warrant release on bail.

Accordingly, the first regular bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was rejected in relation to Crime No. 191/2026 registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS.